CCTV code of practice comes into force in England and Wales - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/pdcb.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23636462[/url] [quote]A code of practice on the use of surveillance cameras by bodies such as local authorities and police forces has come into effect in England and Wales. The Home Office introduced the code after concerns over the potential for the abuse or misuse of surveillance by the state in public places. The code says the cameras must be used "in pursuit of a legitimate aim" and when it "meets a pressing need". Campaign group Big Brother Watch said the code did not go far enough. The code of practice also restricts access to and retention of data, and encourages private operators to apply the code as well as public bodies.[/quote]

Code of Practice sounds like a satanic ritual

I couldn't care less about CCTV as long as it helps catch criminals.

I genuinely don't mind about surveillance in a [I]public[/I] place. As long as it stays there. I'm not sure there's many valid arguments against it.

'Pursuit of a legitimate aim' and 'pressing need' are such vague and broad terms, you could plausibly show any number of reasons for setting up a CCTV, which satisfy that criteria. Seems as if this code is more of a political move to appease people concerned with their privacy, than one which has much conviction or substance. But as people have been saying, the fact it's for public places removes the need for too stringent a set of rules.

I need CCTV cameras in my bathroom in case a terrorist comes take a poopy.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41803335]I genuinely don't mind about surveillance in a [I]public[/I] place. As long as it stays there. I'm not sure there's many valid arguments against it.[/QUOTE] Some people don't like having their every movement on file, whether or not they're doing anything wrong. I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of a database of where every single citizen of anywhere goes based on facial recognition data, regardless of who has access to it. The usage and access monitoring, through programs like this is a nice attempt to reign in potentially intrusive surveillance, but the capability is still worrying.

Then don't go in public and lock yourself in your house for the rest of your life because like it or not there are cameras in the public already.

[QUOTE=Groat;41803868]Some people don't like having their every movement on file, whether or not they're doing anything wrong. I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of a database of where every single citizen of anywhere goes based on facial recognition data, regardless of who has access to it. The usage and access monitoring, through programs like this is a nice attempt to reign in potentially intrusive surveillance, but the capability is still worrying.[/QUOTE] Most security cameras that you see are not owned by the government, and they're not connected to some vast network that the police can use to follow you about your day like in movies. Most of them are owned by private businesses and companies, and the footage is stored locally and only checked if there's a break-in or some other incident. [url]http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2013/07/11/bsia-attempts-to-clarify-question-of-how-many-cctv-cameras-in-the-uk/[/url] [quote]Pauline Norstrom, vice chair of the BSIA’s CCTV section, said, “There is a popular misconception that the camera population in the UK is owned by the Government. The BSIA statistics set the record straight once and for all. It is private businesses who own the material camera population, not the Government. Day to day, these cameras are not available to the Government and law enforcement agencies, they are busy working to protect their owner’s premises.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Map in a box;41803860]I need CCTV cameras in my bathroom in case a terrorist comes take a poopy.[/QUOTE] I wasn't aware my bathroom was a public space. [QUOTE=Groat;41803868]Some people don't like having their every movement on file, whether or not they're doing anything wrong. I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of a database of where every single citizen of anywhere goes based on facial recognition data, regardless of who has access to it. The usage and access monitoring, through programs like this is a nice attempt to reign in potentially intrusive surveillance, but the capability is still worrying.[/QUOTE] This is a viewpoint I simply don't understand. I genuinely don't care who sees me do whatever I do in public, because it's [I]public[/I]. If I don't mind people on the street with me seeing me walk down the street; why would I object to a guy seeing the same thing on a PC later on?

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41804464] If I don't mind people on the street with me seeing me walk down the street; why would I object to a guy seeing the same thing on a PC later on?[/QUOTE] Because government :tinfoil:

Eh, I'm not bothered by what is done with CCTV since I don't go outside anyway.

[QUOTE=Groat;41803868]Some people don't like having their every movement on file, whether or not they're doing anything wrong. I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of a database of where every single citizen of anywhere goes based on facial recognition data, regardless of who has access to it. The usage and access monitoring, through programs like this is a nice attempt to reign in potentially intrusive surveillance, but the capability is still worrying.[/QUOTE] However if you're in public, you have no right to privacy regarding recording. You are free to be recorded without legal punishment. However, where your going and coming from is your right to privacy. At least in the us.

I'd prefer not to be monitored in public. Catching criminals is simply not a difficult enough task to make constantly monitoring people worthwhile. What are police being paid to do if not question witnesses for descriptions and actually have to do police work to look for criminals? I like how it's totally OK to record thousands of people every day in public, but the second a single private citizen brings a camera anywhere near private property they'll have security crawling up their ass almost instantly, and how you'll get your camera/phone literally confiscated in many cases if you try to record your interactions with police.

As long as it can aid the process in catching criminals in any way, principal and people's feelings can take a hike.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;41813068]As long as it can aid the process in catching criminals in any way, principal and people's feelings can take a hike.[/QUOTE] That logic can be applied to basically anything, no matter how tyrannical. One needs to draw a line somewhere, and there is no justified catchall attitude towards human rights and privacy. Mass security and surveillance is a sleazy, lazy, creepy and corner-cutting solution of punishing/deterring crime and it's yet another way to avoid tackling the socioeconomic reasons that lie behind the vast majority of criminal nature. Why bother trying to fix the issues of modern society when we can just spy on absolutely everybody!

It doesn't inherently harm or hinder anyone besides maybe making them feel paranoid or violated, it hasn't been used to crush activists or something yet, and it has aided officers before (admittedly not in stopping crimes in their tracks, but to track down criminals). Surveillance as it is now hasn't stopped activists and people from trying to mend the socioeconomic problems among the disadvantaged as far as I know, either.

[QUOTE=smurfy;41803967]Most security cameras that you see are not owned by the government, and they're not connected to some vast network that the police can use to follow you about your day like in movies. Most of them are owned by private businesses and companies, and the footage is stored locally and only checked if there's a break-in or some other incident. [url]http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/2013/07/11/bsia-attempts-to-clarify-question-of-how-many-cctv-cameras-in-the-uk/[/url][/QUOTE] Hell, most of it isn't even stored for very long. Storing vast quantities of video takes disc space. That costs money.